5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in St Petersburg.
6.  The applicant has a brain disorder (organic lesion of the brain provoking manic syndrome) and has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
7.  He and his wife, Ms O.R., who was also suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, had a son, D., born on 10 April 2002. It appears that on an unspecified date they separated. Ms O.R. died on 17 March 2012.
8.  Soon after D.’s birth he was placed in his maternal grandparents’ care. According to the applicant, because he and his wife were unable to take care of the child due to the worsening of Ms O.R.’s mental health, they agreed to place the child temporarily in the care of Ms O.R.’s parents. After the boy went to live with his maternal grandparents the applicant maintained a relationship with him. In particular, the applicant visited his son regularly, spent time with him, took him to social and cultural events and bought books, toys and clothes for him.
9.  On 30 August 2006, at the request of Ms O.R.’s mother, Ms T.K., the local custody and guardianship authority appointed Ms T.K. as D.’s guardian. It appears that the applicant and his wife submitted to the authority a written objection to that measure. The relevant decision of the local custody and guardianship authority stated, in particular, that D.’s mother, Ms O.R., had been undergoing inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital, and that the applicant, D.’s father, had not been living with his son, and had been avoiding bringing up the child and supporting him financially.
10.  On 24 October 2006 the local administration conducted an inspection of Ms T.K.’s living conditions. In the course of the inspection it was established that D. lived with his grandparents in a fully furnished two-bedroom flat, where he had his own bed and plenty of toys and children’s games. During the inspection Ms T.K. stated that D.’s parents did not play any part in his upbringing. According to the results of the inspection, Ms T.K. had created the necessary conditions for D.’s upbringing and well‑being.
11.  On 26 October 2006 Ms T.K. brought proceedings against the applicant and Ms O.R. in an attempt to have Ms O.R.’s parental rights restricted and the applicant’s parental rights terminated. The applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking to have Ms T.K.’s guardianship of the child revoked and D. transferred to his care.
12.  On 18 May 2007 the local administration conducted an inspection of the applicant’s and Ms O.R.’s living conditions. In the course of the inspection it was established that they lived in a two-bedroom shared flat in which they occupied one fully furnished room of 16 sq. m. The applicant worked in a shop from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays. Ms O.R. worked flexible hours in a rehabilitation centre. The applicant and Ms O.R. stated that if D. were to live with them he would go to a kindergarten, and his grandmother would help bringing him up, that is she would pick him up from the kindergarten, take him out for walks and stay with him should he fall ill.
13.  On 31 May 2007 Ms T.K. modified her claim, requesting the court to restrict rather than terminate the applicant’s parental rights.
14.  On the same date Ms O.R. made a written statement to the effect that she agreed to her mother’s remaining D.’s guardian, since Ms T.K. was taking proper care of him. Ms O.R. further stated that due to her state of health and lack of work and financial means she was not in a position to bring D. up herself. She believed that her husband was not in a position to bring D. up either, due to his state of health and his way of life, as he tended to drink and spend nights away from home. A representative of the local custody and guardianship authority certified that the statement had been written in his presence.
15.  In a letter of 4 June 2007 the applicant’s psychiatrist replied to a request for information sent by the applicant’s lawyer in the context of the aforementioned civil proceedings. The letter stated that the applicant was suffering from an organic lesion of the brain, which caused a psychiatric disorder. He had periodic mood swings, but when in remission was well balanced and could work. The applicant did not display psychotic symptoms, delirium, or intellectual or personality changes. He had never tended to behave aggressively towards himself or others. According to the psychiatrist, the applicant’s condition neither impaired his ability to take care of his son and bring him up nor posed any danger to the child’s life or health.
16.  On 18 June 2007 the applicant further underwent an examination at St Petersburg psycho-neurological clinic no. 10. A report on the results of that examination stated that the applicant did not display any socially dangerous tendencies, and that his mental condition did not impair his ability to fulfil his parental duties.
17.  On 14 August 2007 the custody and guardianship authority provided the court with the opinion that it would be in D.’s best interest for the parental rights of the applicant and Ms O.R. to be restricted.
18.  On 16 August 2007 the applicant modified his counterclaim, waiving his request to have his son transferred to his care, as he had realised that it would be in the child’s interests to continue living with his grandparents. He also maintained his request to have Ms T.K.’s guardianship of his son revoked, and requested the court to determine his contact rights in respect of his son to the extent and in the manner desired by him. In particular, the applicant sought the right to visit D. at Ms T.K.’s home, with prior notification to Ms T.K. and without any restrictions on the number and length of such visits; the right to pick D. up from school with a view to their spending time together, with prior notification to Ms T.K. and indication of the amount of time the applicant intended to spend with D. and the time at which he would bring the boy back to Ms T.K.’s home; the right to have the boy overnight at weekends and public holidays not more than twice a month, with prior notification to Ms T.K. and indication of the amount of time the applicant intended to spend with D. and the time at which he would bring the boy back to Ms T.K.’s home, Ms T.K. also to have the right to visit D. at the applicant’s home; the right to have the boy during school holidays and take him travelling, with prior notification to Ms T.K. and indication of the amount of time the applicant intended to spend with D. and the time at which he would bring the boy back to Ms T.K.’s home.
19.  On 29 August 2007 the St Petersburg Nevskiy District Court delivered its judgment. The applicant was not present at the hearing but was represented by counsel, who objected to the claim and supported the counterclaim. The court noted that the applicant had been present at previous hearings and had objected to the claim.
20.  The court examined the adduced materials, which included the results of the inspections of living conditions; medical certificates and opinions concerning the applicant’s and Ms O.R.’s health, including those cited above in paragraphs 15 and 16; the opinion of the custody and guardianship authority; a letter from D.’s kindergarten to the effect that he was being brought up by his grandparents and that his parents, who had health problems, played no part in his upbringing and showed no interest in him; a letter from a children’s outpatient clinic to the effect that it was D.’s grandmother and not his parents who took him to the clinic; a letter of reference from the applicant’s employer to the effect that he was polite, disciplined and cared about his son; and statements by Ms O.R. to the effect that she also had no objection to the restriction of her parental rights or to Ms T.K. remaining D.’s guardian.
21.  The court also examined a number of witnesses. Witness K., a relative of Ms T.K., submitted that she often visited the latter. D. lived with Ms T.K. and the applicant and Ms O.R. visited him there. Ms T.K. provided D. with everything required for his well-being, but his parents were not involved in his upbringing. Witness M., who had no family relationship with either party, stated that D. lived with Ms T.K. and that she was not aware of any conflicts between them. D.’s mother did not live with them and did not play a part in D.’s upbringing. The latter called his grandparents “mother” and “father”. Witness O.I.R., the applicant’s mother, submitted that although the defendants were ill, the applicant was able to take care of the child. She also helped with D.’s upbringing and support. Witness S., who had no family relationship with either party, stated that she knew the applicant from the time he had spent in a rehabilitation centre. The latter treated his son with respect and wanted to take care of him. Witness P., an acquaintance of Ms T.K., submitted that D. attended kindergarten. His mother had visited him there only twice in the course of a year, and during one of the visits she had behaved aggressively towards kindergarten staff. D. mostly talked about his grandparents. He rarely referred to his parents, but also never said anything negative about his father.
22.  The court found that for a prolonged period of time parental duties in respect of D. had been carried out by Ms T.K., as the child had been taken by her from the maternity ward after his birth and had lived with her ever since. The court further noted that Ms O.R. had avoided bringing D. up because of her mental health, and that the applicant had neglected his parental duties for a prolonged period of time because of his mental impairment and the difficult circumstances of his life. On account of Ms O.R.’s illness the court disregarded her statements to the effect that she accepted the restriction of her parental rights. However, it allowed the claim lodged against Ms O.R. on the ground of her health and the fact that she had completely neglected her parental responsibilities.
23.  The court then observed that the applicant, who was suffering from a chronic disorder with periods of both aggravation and remission, had not completely avoided bringing up and supporting his child. However, the court referred to the nature of the applicant’s disorder, and considered that it could be dangerous for the boy to live with the applicant because of circumstances independent of the applicant (his brain disorder). The court therefore considered it necessary to restrict the applicant’s parental rights, with reference to Article 73 of the Russian Family Code. The court rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s argument to the effect that it had not been proven that the applicant posed any danger to his son. It stated in this respect that Ms T.K.’s request for the applicant’s parental rights to be restricted was based not only on his psychiatric condition but also on his conduct, which demonstrated that he had avoided playing a part in the child’s upbringing.
24.  The court further considered that D. should continue to benefit from Ms T.K.’s guardianship, and rejected that part of the applicant’s claim. On the other hand, the court noted, with reference to medical evidence, that the applicant’s mental health did not render contact between him and his son impossible. It therefore held, taking into account the favourable opinion of the local custody and guardianship authority in this respect, that all types of contact between the applicant and D., as requested by the applicant in his counterclaim of 16 August 2007, should be allowed. The court stipulated, however, that they may only take place “with the consent of guardian Ms T.K.”
25.  Lastly, the court also added that by virtue of Article 76 of the Russian Family Code the applicant would be able to request a court to lift the restriction of his parental rights and return his son to him if the reasons on the basis of which such restrictions had been imposed ceased to exist.
26.  In his appeal statement against the judgment of 29 August 2007 the applicant argued that the decision of the Nevskiy District Court to restrict his parental rights was erroneous, as it had not been shown that he posed any danger to his son. The applicant also pointed out that, in the part which allowed him to have contact with his son, the judgment was illusory, because it made those contacts dependent on the consent of D.’s guardian, Ms T.K. According to the applicant, in a situation where he was in an obvious conflict with Ms T.K. and where the latter was seeking to have his parental rights restricted, it was hardly conceivable that she would favour any contact between him and the child, and that therefore he would never be able to exercise these rights. He therefore requested the appeal court to remove the words “with the consent of guardian Ms T.K.” from the first‑instance court’s judgment and to make his contact with D. dependent on the consent of the custody and guardianship authority rather than on that of Ms T.K.
27.  On 25 October 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 29 August 2007 on appeal, relying in essence on the reasoning of the first-instance court. It dismissed the applicant’s argument concerning the restriction of his parental rights, referring to Articles 73 and 74 of the Family Code; the first-instance court findings to the effect that since his birth D. had lived with his grandmother, and that his parents were suffering from mental health problems and played no part in his upbringing; the opinion of the custody and guardianship authority supporting the restriction of parental rights; and the fact that the applicant himself considered that it was in D.’s interests to remain in Ms T.K.’s care.
28.  The appeal court also dismissed the applicant’s argument that it would be impossible for him to have contact with his son if it were made dependent on Ms T.K.’s consent. The court noted in this respect that, under Article 75 of the Russian Family Code, contact between a child and a parent whose parental rights had been restricted was only allowed with the consent of the custody and guardianship authority or the child’s guardian. The appeal court thus concluded that the Nevskiy District Court had complied with this provision in its judgment.
29.  On 6 December 2011 the local administration issued a statement to the effect that D. was being provided with all the requisite conditions for his well-being, upbringing, development and studies. He was a successful school student and had received a distinction upon completion of the second grade.
30.  On 12 December 2011 the local administration issued another statement, to the effect that since 2007 the applicant had been able to have contact with his son as provided by the decision of the Nevskiy District Court. There had been no instances of hindrance of his visiting rights, nor had he ever applied for the restriction of his parental rights to be lifted. From an interview with D. on 9 December 2011 it appeared that he had good relations with his father, whom he had last seen two weeks ago; the next meeting was scheduled for 10-11 December 2011.
31.  On 13 December 2011, when D. was in the third grade at school, his teacher provided the following information about him. D. was a hard‑working, friendly and cultured boy; he received “good” and “excellent” grades for all school subjects. D. had friends among his schoolmates, and did not quarrel with anyone. During breaks between classes he was involved in games and communication with his classmates. He was also involved in extracurricular activities. Ms T.K. was D.’s guardian and at home provided due conditions for his well-being: his own room, a desk and a bed. His grandparents constantly monitored his studies. They visited school to enquire about D.’s progress. Ms T.K. regularly attended parents’ meetings at school and took D. to theatres and museums. The teacher had never met D.’s father, as he had never come to the school. From Ms T.K. she knew that D. spent almost every weekend with his father.
32.  On 16 December 2011 a representative of the local custody and guardianship authority interviewed D. The latter stated that he saw his father twice a month. They would go together to a museum, a theatre, an ice-rink or a shop. His father also regularly gave him some pocket money and they talked on the telephone approximately once a month. In response to the questions D. also stated that his grandparents helped him with his homework and they had taken care of him when he was ill, whereas his father had not visited him during his illness.
33.  On the same date the same representative of the local custody and guardianship authority interviewed Ms T.K. She stated that the applicant saw D. twice a month and that during D.’s illness he had enquired after him on the telephone but had not been to visit him. She further submitted that the applicant only helped to bring D. up by paying child support, but did not help D. with his studies. Ms T.K. stated that in her view the applicant did not “actively” show affection towards his son.
34.  On the basis of the two interviews the representative of the local custody and guardianship authority concluded that the applicant saw his son twice a month, and that there had been no hindrance of the visiting rights determined by the decision of the Nevskiy District Court of 29 August 2007. The applicant was passive in his relationship with his son. He was not helping him with his studies, nor had he visited him when he was ill. The applicant had not expressed any wish to take his son to live with him and to bring him up himself.